Put quite simply, the rights of the woman should be absolutely paramount in a pregnancy, and if a woman does not want to remain pregnant, then she should not be forced to remain so. There are numerous arguments we can go down, but the most pivotal one is that even if we grant the premise that a foetus is a human, it doesn't matter, because no "human" has any kind of legal human right to legally obtain the bodily resources of an unwilling human (read: a woman who does not want to be pregnant) for the purposes of its own survival. Which is why, a lot of the time, any scare-mongering about third-term abortions are especially unjustified, because women who are in the third term of pregnancy generally want to either keep the child or at the very least give birth to it for someone else's benefit, and the only reason any woman has a third trimester abortion amounts to either the life of the mother being in danger, the discovering of a crippling condition the future child will end up having, or a still-birth in the womb.

At 6/12/2013 6:15:53 AM, JonMilne wrote:Put quite simply, the rights of the woman should be absolutely paramount in a pregnancy, and if a woman does not want to remain pregnant, then she should not be forced to remain so. There are numerous arguments we can go down, but the most pivotal one is that even if we grant the premise that a foetus is a human, it doesn't matter, because no "human" has any kind of legal human right to legally obtain the bodily resources of an unwilling human (read: a woman who does not want to be pregnant) for the purposes of its own survival. Which is why, a lot of the time, any scare-mongering about third-term abortions are especially unjustified, because women who are in the third term of pregnancy generally want to either keep the child or at the very least give birth to it for someone else's benefit, and the only reason any woman has a third trimester abortion amounts to either the life of the mother being in danger, the discovering of a crippling condition the future child will end up having, or a still-birth in the womb.

Are you actually allowed to post rational arguments on this site? HUZZAH!!

"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act".

At 6/12/2013 6:15:53 AM, JonMilne wrote:Put quite simply, the rights of the woman should be absolutely paramount in a pregnancy, and if a woman does not want to remain pregnant, then she should not be forced to remain so. There are numerous arguments we can go down, but the most pivotal one is that even if we grant the premise that a foetus is a human, it doesn't matter, because no "human" has any kind of legal human right to legally obtain the bodily resources of an unwilling human (read: a woman who does not want to be pregnant) for the purposes of its own survival. Which is why, a lot of the time, any scare-mongering about third-term abortions are especially unjustified, because women who are in the third term of pregnancy generally want to either keep the child or at the very least give birth to it for someone else's benefit, and the only reason any woman has a third trimester abortion amounts to either the life of the mother being in danger, the discovering of a crippling condition the future child will end up having, or a still-birth in the womb.

Why should they? After all, in all but a few cases the woman has as much made the decision to do what brought the child into being, the child has no such choice, so why should it's rights not be paramount.

Just because we insist on being so callous that we set a time limit before which a child is not seen as a person does not mean that time limit is right. God has made it every clear in scripture that he values life from the moment of conception onwards.

A life is a life, so why should the innocent child be sentenced to death when it has done nothing wrong? That isn't justice, that is barbarism pure and simple.

It impossible to make a horse drink which is not thirsty, or eat if it is not hungry.

Likewise it is impossible to teach a person who does not wish to learn. Matthew 13:15.

At 6/12/2013 6:15:53 AM, JonMilne wrote:Put quite simply, the rights of the woman should be absolutely paramount in a pregnancy, and if a woman does not want to remain pregnant, then she should not be forced to remain so. There are numerous arguments we can go down, but the most pivotal one is that even if we grant the premise that a foetus is a human, it doesn't matter, because no "human" has any kind of legal human right to legally obtain the bodily resources of an unwilling human (read: a woman who does not want to be pregnant) for the purposes of its own survival. Which is why, a lot of the time, any scare-mongering about third-term abortions are especially unjustified, because women who are in the third term of pregnancy generally want to either keep the child or at the very least give birth to it for someone else's benefit, and the only reason any woman has a third trimester abortion amounts to either the life of the mother being in danger, the discovering of a crippling condition the future child will end up having, or a still-birth in the womb.

Why should they? After all, in all but a few cases the woman has as much made the decision to do what brought the child into being, the child has no such choice, so why should it's rights not be paramount.

Just because we insist on being so callous that we set a time limit before which a child is not seen as a person does not mean that time limit is right. God has made it every clear in scripture that he values life from the moment of conception onwards.

A life is a life, so why should the innocent child be sentenced to death when it has done nothing wrong? That isn't justice, that is barbarism pure and simple.

Are you a woman and have you ever been pregnant?

"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act".

At 6/12/2013 6:15:53 AM, JonMilne wrote:Put quite simply, the rights of the woman should be absolutely paramount in a pregnancy, and if a woman does not want to remain pregnant, then she should not be forced to remain so. There are numerous arguments we can go down, but the most pivotal one is that even if we grant the premise that a foetus is a human, it doesn't matter, because no "human" has any kind of legal human right to legally obtain the bodily resources of an unwilling human (read: a woman who does not want to be pregnant) for the purposes of its own survival. Which is why, a lot of the time, any scare-mongering about third-term abortions are especially unjustified, because women who are in the third term of pregnancy generally want to either keep the child or at the very least give birth to it for someone else's benefit, and the only reason any woman has a third trimester abortion amounts to either the life of the mother being in danger, the discovering of a crippling condition the future child will end up having, or a still-birth in the womb.

Why should they? After all, in all but a few cases the woman has as much made the decision to do what brought the child into being, the child has no such choice, so why should it's rights not be paramount.

Just because we insist on being so callous that we set a time limit before which a child is not seen as a person does not mean that time limit is right. God has made it every clear in scripture that he values life from the moment of conception onwards.

A life is a life, so why should the innocent child be sentenced to death when it has done nothing wrong? That isn't justice, that is barbarism pure and simple.

Are you a woman and have you ever been pregnant?

Do you know what a sperm and a fundamentalist theist have in common?

"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act".

At 6/12/2013 6:15:53 AM, JonMilne wrote:Put quite simply, the rights of the woman should be absolutely paramount in a pregnancy, and if a woman does not want to remain pregnant, then she should not be forced to remain so. There are numerous arguments we can go down, but the most pivotal one is that even if we grant the premise that a foetus is a human, it doesn't matter, because no "human" has any kind of legal human right to legally obtain the bodily resources of an unwilling human (read: a woman who does not want to be pregnant) for the purposes of its own survival. Which is why, a lot of the time, any scare-mongering about third-term abortions are especially unjustified, because women who are in the third term of pregnancy generally want to either keep the child or at the very least give birth to it for someone else's benefit, and the only reason any woman has a third trimester abortion amounts to either the life of the mother being in danger, the discovering of a crippling condition the future child will end up having, or a still-birth in the womb.

Why should they? After all, in all but a few cases the woman has as much made the decision to do what brought the child into being, the child has no such choice, so why should it's rights not be paramount.

Because you're making the assumption here that any and all sex had is done with the goal that one should end up being pregnant by the end. Of course, there are any number of reasons why pregnancy can result from sex unintended for procreation, be it Birth control (contraceptive) failure (in which over half of all women who have an abortion used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant), or plain ignorance (see children who have either been home-schooled or pulled out of sex education classes. And beyond that, let's not forget some other perfectly good reasons for abortion preventing the birth of children who get found to have birth defects or severe medical problems (which are often unknown until routine second trimester tests are done), or indeed physical/mental conditions that endanger the woman if the pregnancy is continued. And of course there's there is the rape/incest factors, as well as an inability to support/care for a child, or plain old not wanting one.

By the way, that quoted comment above is incredibly sexist. You've engaged in two forms of argumentation here, one doing the whole "zygote/fetus is a person with rights" argument, which is passively anti-woman in that it almost always involves erasing women from the equation and ignoring women"s right to control their own bodies. The second form of argumentation you've done is the whole "women shouldn"t have sex unless they"re willing to be mothers" argument, also known as the slut-shaming argument and is actively anti-woman in that it involves shaming women for having had sex and seeking to impose a measure of social control on women.

But let's entertain the Pro-Lifers' logic for a moment. If abortion truly is murder and barbaric, the argument that women need to "take responsibility" for the "voluntary decision" to have sex by carrying the pregnancy to term is irrelevant. It should not matter. If it"s just about "saving babies," then abortion is wrong because it"s murder, not because it"s a woman failing to "take responsibility" for having had sex. When someone makes the above argument, then, they make clear that some proportion of the anti-abortion movement is not simply interested in "saving babies," but rather in depriving women of control of their own reproduction. Some proportion of the anti-abortion movement, then, is actively anti-woman, not simply passively anti-woman. They make opposing abortion about "slut shaming," about trying to control women who want to have sex but not to have children, not about "saving babies."

Just because we insist on being so callous that we set a time limit before which a child is not seen as a person does not mean that time limit is right. God has made it every clear in scripture that he values life from the moment of conception onwards.

Doesn't really mean much when one doesn't believe in God, and all you're doing is arguing from some mystical authority's subjective viewpoint, which doesn't really stand up against more modern scientific studies about when a foetus can actually be classified as a person.

A life is a life, so why should the innocent child be sentenced to death when it has done nothing wrong? That isn't justice, that is barbarism pure and simple.

Why isn"t having an abortion taking responsibility for her actions? It"s not responsible to create a child if you"re not in a position to give it a decent chance at a certain quality of life so the really irresponsible thing for women to do would be to carry every pregnancy to term. Having an abortion is one way of taking responsibility for an unwanted pregnancy, just as deciding to go through with the pregnancy and either keep the resulting baby or give it up for adoption are other ways of taking responsibility. We should trust women to make their own decisions, not force them to take the course we personally think they should take. Unless, of course, it really is about punishing women audacious enough to have sex without wanting to be mothers by forcing them to go through pregnancy and have a child.

And yet again, I'll point out, regardless of whether a foetus can be a considered a legitimate human lifeform, IT DOESN'T matter, because no human lifeform has the legal human right to legally obtain the bodily resources of another unwilling human lifeform for the purposes of survival.

At 6/12/2013 6:15:53 AM, JonMilne wrote:Put quite simply, the rights of the woman should be absolutely paramount in a pregnancy, and if a woman does not want to remain pregnant, then she should not be forced to remain so. There are numerous arguments we can go down, but the most pivotal one is that even if we grant the premise that a foetus is a human, it doesn't matter, because no "human" has any kind of legal human right to legally obtain the bodily resources of an unwilling human (read: a woman who does not want to be pregnant) for the purposes of its own survival. Which is why, a lot of the time, any scare-mongering about third-term abortions are especially unjustified, because women who are in the third term of pregnancy generally want to either keep the child or at the very least give birth to it for someone else's benefit, and the only reason any woman has a third trimester abortion amounts to either the life of the mother being in danger, the discovering of a crippling condition the future child will end up having, or a still-birth in the womb.

Why should they? After all, in all but a few cases the woman has as much made the decision to do what brought the child into being, the child has no such choice, so why should it's rights not be paramount.

Because you're making the assumption here that any and all sex had is done with the goal that one should end up being pregnant by the end. Of course, there are any number of reasons why pregnancy can result from sex unintended for procreation, be it Birth control (contraceptive) failure (in which over half of all women who have an abortion used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant), or plain ignorance (see children who have either been home-schooled or pulled out of sex education classes. And beyond that, let's not forget some other perfectly good reasons for abortion preventing the birth of children who get found to have birth defects or severe medical problems (which are often unknown until routine second trimester tests are done), or indeed physical/mental conditions that endanger the woman if the pregnancy is continued. And of course there's there is the rape/incest factors, as well as an inability to support/care for a child, or plain old not wanting one.

By the way, that quoted comment above is incredibly sexist. You've engaged in two forms of argumentation here, one doing the whole "zygote/fetus is a person with rights" argument, which is passively anti-woman in that it almost always involves erasing women from the equation and ignoring women"s right to control their own bodies. The second form of argumentation you've done is the whole "women shouldn"t have sex unless they"re willing to be mothers" argument, also known as the slut-shaming argument and is actively anti-woman in that it involves shaming women for having had sex and seeking to impose a measure of social control on women.

But let's entertain the Pro-Lifers' logic for a moment. If abortion truly is murder and barbaric, the argument that women need to "take responsibility" for the "voluntary decision" to have sex by carrying the pregnancy to term is irrelevant. It should not matter. If it"s just about "saving babies," then abortion is wrong because it"s murder, not because it"s a woman failing to "take responsibility" for having had sex. When someone makes the above argument, then, they make clear that some proportion of the anti-abortion movement is not simply interested in "saving babies," but rather in depriving women of control of their own reproduction. Some proportion of the anti-abortion movement, then, is actively anti-woman, not simply passively anti-woman. They make opposing abortion about "slut shaming," about trying to control women who want to have sex but not to have children, not about "saving babies."

Just because we insist on being so callous that we set a time limit before which a child is not seen as a person does not mean that time limit is right. God has made it every clear in scripture that he values life from the moment of conception onwards.

Doesn't really mean much when one doesn't believe in God, and all you're doing is arguing from some mystical authority's subjective viewpoint, which doesn't really stand up against more modern scientific studies about when a foetus can actually be classified as a person.

A life is a life, so why should the innocent child be sentenced to death when it has done nothing wrong? That isn't justice, that is barbarism pure and simple.

Why isn"t having an abortion taking responsibility for her actions? It"s not responsible to create a child if you"re not in a position to give it a decent chance at a certain quality of life so the really irresponsible thing for women to do would be to carry every pregnancy to term. Having an abortion is one way of taking responsibility for an unwanted pregnancy, just as deciding to go through with the pregnancy and either keep the resulting baby or give it up for adoption are other ways of taking responsibility. We should trust women to make their own decisions, not force them to take the course we personally think they should take. Unless, of course, it really is about punishing women audacious enough to have sex without wanting to be mothers by forcing them to go through pregnancy and have a child.

And yet again, I'll point out, regardless of whether a foetus can be a considered a legitimate human lifeform, IT DOESN'T matter, because no human lifeform has the legal human right to legally obtain the bodily resources of another unwilling human lifeform for the purposes of survival.

No it is not responsible to create a child that is unwanted, but that is what contraception is for, abortion can only be carried out once the child has been created, therefore it is an abdication of an responsibility already formed.

Using your argument against you no human life-form has the right to terminate the existence of another.

In fact, having been created through an act performed by the mother and father, the foetus has an inalienable right to expect the parent to maintain it's life by whatever means necessary. They created it, they can care for it, the father by providing for the needs of the mother and the mother by providing for the needs of the child.

As to when the foetus become s a human life, conception is the only time that can happen since all the DNA the foetus needs is in the sperm / egg combination. a dead sperm cannot fertilize a live egg and a dead egg cannot be fertilized by a live sperm. Life is not created, it is simply passed on.

If you don't like it maybe you should take that up with God. He created us this way.

It impossible to make a horse drink which is not thirsty, or eat if it is not hungry.

Likewise it is impossible to teach a person who does not wish to learn. Matthew 13:15.

At 6/12/2013 6:15:53 AM, JonMilne wrote:Put quite simply, the rights of the woman should be absolutely paramount in a pregnancy, and if a woman does not want to remain pregnant, then she should not be forced to remain so. There are numerous arguments we can go down, but the most pivotal one is that even if we grant the premise that a foetus is a human, it doesn't matter, because no "human" has any kind of legal human right to legally obtain the bodily resources of an unwilling human (read: a woman who does not want to be pregnant) for the purposes of its own survival. Which is why, a lot of the time, any scare-mongering about third-term abortions are especially unjustified, because women who are in the third term of pregnancy generally want to either keep the child or at the very least give birth to it for someone else's benefit, and the only reason any woman has a third trimester abortion amounts to either the life of the mother being in danger, the discovering of a crippling condition the future child will end up having, or a still-birth in the womb.

Why should they? After all, in all but a few cases the woman has as much made the decision to do what brought the child into being, the child has no such choice, so why should it's rights not be paramount.

Because you're making the assumption here that any and all sex had is done with the goal that one should end up being pregnant by the end. Of course, there are any number of reasons why pregnancy can result from sex unintended for procreation, be it Birth control (contraceptive) failure (in which over half of all women who have an abortion used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant), or plain ignorance (see children who have either been home-schooled or pulled out of sex education classes. And beyond that, let's not forget some other perfectly good reasons for abortion preventing the birth of children who get found to have birth defects or severe medical problems (which are often unknown until routine second trimester tests are done), or indeed physical/mental conditions that endanger the woman if the pregnancy is continued. And of course there's there is the rape/incest factors, as well as an inability to support/care for a child, or plain old not wanting one.

By the way, that quoted comment above is incredibly sexist. You've engaged in two forms of argumentation here, one doing the whole "zygote/fetus is a person with rights" argument, which is passively anti-woman in that it almost always involves erasing women from the equation and ignoring women"s right to control their own bodies. The second form of argumentation you've done is the whole "women shouldn"t have sex unless they"re willing to be mothers" argument, also known as the slut-shaming argument and is actively anti-woman in that it involves shaming women for having had sex and seeking to impose a measure of social control on women.

But let's entertain the Pro-Lifers' logic for a moment. If abortion truly is murder and barbaric, the argument that women need to "take responsibility" for the "voluntary decision" to have sex by carrying the pregnancy to term is irrelevant. It should not matter. If it"s just about "saving babies," then abortion is wrong because it"s murder, not because it"s a woman failing to "take responsibility" for having had sex. When someone makes the above argument, then, they make clear that some proportion of the anti-abortion movement is not simply interested in "saving babies," but rather in depriving women of control of their own reproduction. Some proportion of the anti-abortion movement, then, is actively anti-woman, not simply passively anti-woman. They make opposing abortion about "slut shaming," about trying to control women who want to have sex but not to have children, not about "saving babies."

Just because we insist on being so callous that we set a time limit before which a child is not seen as a person does not mean that time limit is right. God has made it every clear in scripture that he values life from the moment of conception onwards.

Doesn't really mean much when one doesn't believe in God, and all you're doing is arguing from some mystical authority's subjective viewpoint, which doesn't really stand up against more modern scientific studies about when a foetus can actually be classified as a person.

A life is a life, so why should the innocent child be sentenced to death when it has done nothing wrong? That isn't justice, that is barbarism pure and simple.

Why isn"t having an abortion taking responsibility for her actions? It"s not responsible to create a child if you"re not in a position to give it a decent chance at a certain quality of life so the really irresponsible thing for women to do would be to carry every pregnancy to term. Having an abortion is one way of taking responsibility for an unwanted pregnancy, just as deciding to go through with the pregnancy and either keep the resulting baby or give it up for adoption are other ways of taking responsibility. We should trust women to make their own decisions, not force them to take the course we personally think they should take. Unless, of course, it really is about punishing women audacious enough to have sex without wanting to be mothers by forcing them to go through pregnancy and have a child.

And yet again, I'll point out, regardless of whether a foetus can be a considered a legitimate human lifeform, IT DOESN'T matter, because no human lifeform has the legal human right to legally obtain the bodily resources of another unwilling human lifeform for the purposes of survival.

No it is not responsible to create a child that is unwanted, but that is what contraception is for, abortion can only be carried out once the child has been created, therefore it is an abdication of an responsibility already formed.

Using your argument against you no human life-form has the right to terminate the existence of another.

In fact, having been created through an act performed by the mother and father, the foetus has an inalienable right to expect the parent to maintain it's life by whatever means necessary. They created it, they can care for it, the father by providing for the needs of the mother and the mother by providing for the needs of the child.

As to when the foetus become s a human life, conception is the only time that can happen since all the DNA the foetus needs is in the sperm / egg combination. a dead sperm cannot fertilize a live egg and a dead egg cannot be fertilized by a live sperm. Life is not created, it is simply passed on.

If you don't like it maybe you should take that up with God. He created us this way.

250,000,000 sperm exist in one ejaculation (average), only one of those sperm (average) fertilizes an AVAILABLE ovum and that fertilized ovum then needs to embed itself in the uterus and survive for forty weeks. Most never do. Who is playing abortionist in those cases? I hope it's not the god you claim is against abortion?

"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act".

At 6/12/2013 9:06:36 AM, bulproof wrote:BTW each and everyone of those sperm has the POTENTIAL to be a person.Why does god kill so many?

He doesn't kill any, however such large numbers are released in order to ensure that at least one survivor makes it to target and hopefully with the strength to do it's Job.

The further we get from perfection the harder it appears to be.

Who kills them?

No-one kills them, just like all lifeforms currently they just die with time. They are, after all, only motile cells, and all other cells in our body die with time.

They say that physically you are not the same person you were 7 years ago because every cell in your body will have died and been replaced by then. Blood cells are replace more often that that, much more often, as are some others

Sperm cells and eggs are not different in that respect.

It impossible to make a horse drink which is not thirsty, or eat if it is not hungry.

Likewise it is impossible to teach a person who does not wish to learn. Matthew 13:15.

At 6/12/2013 8:56:37 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:No it is not responsible to create a child that is unwanted, but that is what contraception is for, abortion can only be carried out once the child has been created, therefore it is an abdication of an responsibility already formed.

Demonstrating that you haven't read my argument at all. Sometimes there's a failure of contraception, or like I said the parties involved can sometimes be unaware of how to use said contraception. And then of course there's rape. But beyond that, if you truly considering abortion an "abdication" of responsibility because it's apparently murder, then why in the world would you make the "take responsibility" and "deal with the consequences" argument in the first place? If abortion is murder, then why talk about women needing to "take responsibility" for their "voluntary choice" to have sex? Shouldn"t you just be focusing on the whole murder thing, rather than talking about a pregnancy and resulting baby like they"re some sort of "consequences" that a woman choosing to have sex should have to be shouldered with? If abortion isn"t murder, the only reason to oppose it is in an effort to control women"s sexuality. If abortion is murder, than whether or not women should "take responsibility" should not matter. Only inveighing against murder should matter.

Using your argument against you no human life-form has the right to terminate the existence of another.

Not at all. As a matter of fact, we have such things as property or "castle" rights, wherein you are in theory allowed to kill someone who is engaging in a form of trespass on your personal property. This is an absolutely apt description to give to a life-form that would end up taking the unwilling woman's body hostage for nine months and thus the unwilling woman's right to kill it.

In fact, having been created through an act performed by the mother and father, the foetus has an inalienable right to expect the parent to maintain it's life by whatever means necessary. They created it, they can care for it, the father by providing for the needs of the mother and the mother by providing for the needs of the child.

The father is biologically irrelevant during the pregnancy. He's not the one who has to carry the child in him for nine months. Advocates of pro-choice generally believe that a human being's body is inviolable, and the state should not regulate it. Specifically, women should never be forced to be "incubators" for a fetus. Furthermore, adoption is not a viable alternative to abortion because it does not address the problem of unwanted pregnancy; only the problem of unwanted parenthood. Abortion addresses both. And while adoption can spare a woman the burden of child-rearing, it cannot insulate her from the psychological distress, which can be severe, of giving up a child her instincts tell her to keep.

Furthermore, comparing the rights of the embryo/foetus against those to the mother depends heavily on whether the embryo/foetus can be considered a person capable of having rights. For all the 'life begins at conception' arguments defining the start of personhood is far more complex and many authorities - especially non religious ones - place it beyond the limit for normal legal abortions at around 25 weeks.

Pregnancy is a life changing event. Women will necessarily have serious medical risks and will endure serious pain and suffering carrying a child to term and giving birth. Yet no one proposes laws to stop pregnancy for "women's health" concerns. Women who are pregnant will necessarily face emotional and physical changes regardless of the outcome of the pregnancy. Women who give a child up for adoption may one day think it was the best decision, and may on a different day wish they had raised the baby. Women who have children may look at the life they live and have days they regret the whole thing. No one is cautioning them not to have children much less make it a law. Women who are pregnant and poor, risk their own life and health as well as the baby's life and health - but the cries for help go largely unheard by the society at large. The only time "pro life" camp offers "health to the woman" as a national issue to be addressed is when abortion is the topic.

Dismissing pregnancy as a "temporary inconvenience" which will hardly affect a woman's social life and career fails to understand the massive, life changing effects that pregnancy and parenthood have on a woman's life. Pregnancy is a serious medical condition that can cause severe mental and physical harm, especially when it's unwanted. Something that can maim or even kill someone should never be described as an "inconvenience". This argument also fails to address the very reality of day to day life for women, and denies them the right to put themselves in the best position for their personal success. A women on Broadway, a NASA astronaut, any Military Academy cadet, a politician running for office, a mother with 2 jobs and 2 kids who is interviewing for a new job with bennies, a teacher in a rural town, a 16 year old facing a scholarship to college, would all reasonably stand to lose major events in their life for the sake of a child they did not want.

Although it takes two to make a child, it's always the woman who's left holding the baby. If this can be prevented before the embyo/foetus becomes a person then this could be said to be a positive outcome

As to when the foetus become s a human life, conception is the only time that can happen since all the DNA the foetus needs is in the sperm / egg combination. a dead sperm cannot fertilize a live egg and a dead egg cannot be fertilized by a live sperm. Life is not created, it is simply passed on.

Carl Sagan has my back here about how best to define a human being when it comes to the whole abortion debate. In "The Question Of Abortion" (co-authored with Ann Druyan), which I highly recommend you read, their most powerful argument regards how to define a human being"one who receives the rights inherent to human beings. A human being cannot be defined as "potential", or we would be compelled to protect every sperm and ovum, an absurd impracticality. Nor can it begin at conception, because most zygotes (fertilized egg) naturally fail to implant in the uterus. Humanity in a fetus cannot be defined by whether it has developed a heart, or lungs, or toenails, or fingerprints, or a recognizably human face, because such things are superficial and are not what make us human. The only standard left is the brain. Druyan and Sagan deal with this last in scientific and philosophical terms. They point out that it is only the higher brain functions that differentiate us from other animals. However, scans conducted of infant brains show that most babies do not develop such functions until thirty days after birth. Using that as an absolute standard would condone infanticide, but the authors sidestep the issue by erring on the safe side. The earliest a fetus has ever been known to show higher brain functions (as determined by scans of fetal brain activity) is at six months of age. Until the fetus is six months old, Druyan and Sagan conclude in "The Question of Abortion", abortion should be allowed and protected.

If you don't like it maybe you should take that up with God. He created us this way.

Again, I don't believe in God, so appealing to the subjective opinions of a mystical authority cuts no ice with me.

At 6/12/2013 9:06:36 AM, bulproof wrote:BTW each and everyone of those sperm has the POTENTIAL to be a person.Why does god kill so many?

He doesn't kill any, however such large numbers are released in order to ensure that at least one survivor makes it to target and hopefully with the strength to do it's Job.

The further we get from perfection the harder it appears to be.

Who kills them?

No-one kills them, just like all lifeforms currently they just die with time. They are, after all, only motile cells, and all other cells in our body die with time.

They say that physically you are not the same person you were 7 years ago because every cell in your body will have died and been replaced by then. Blood cells are replace more often that that, much more often, as are some others

Sperm cells and eggs are not different in that respect.

So them sperm cells and ovums and skin cells and blood cells and every other part of our body is replaced and are just transient. Those poor cells you want to claim to be human, just lost all their credibility. You've done good.

"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act".

At 6/12/2013 6:15:53 AM, JonMilne wrote:Put quite simply, the rights of the woman should be absolutely paramount in a pregnancy, and if a woman does not want to remain pregnant, then she should not be forced to remain so. There are numerous arguments we can go down, but the most pivotal one is that even if we grant the premise that a foetus is a human, it doesn't matter, because no "human" has any kind of legal human right to legally obtain the bodily resources of an unwilling human (read: a woman who does not want to be pregnant) for the purposes of its own survival. Which is why, a lot of the time, any scare-mongering about third-term abortions are especially unjustified, because women who are in the third term of pregnancy generally want to either keep the child or at the very least give birth to it for someone else's benefit, and the only reason any woman has a third trimester abortion amounts to either the life of the mother being in danger, the discovering of a crippling condition the future child will end up having, or a still-birth in the womb.

This is a religious forum? What are you expecting, that someone with a biblical stance will agree with you and give you a deep answer as why it good to kill the fetus without just cause. Most will have regret's. You like to do something you're going to regret? There are other options, adoption is a good one. But killing! Why? Rights of the helpless baby? Where does that come into play, since we're so concerned about rights?Oh yeh! My rights, MINE! ME! I! Just a little selfcentered, you think?

At 6/12/2013 6:15:53 AM, JonMilne wrote:Put quite simply, the rights of the woman should be absolutely paramount in a pregnancy, and if a woman does not want to remain pregnant, then she should not be forced to remain so.

And so they kill the, um, lets see now, its a, a, fertilized egg, but not yet ready to be born, so we'll just call it a fetus, non human, just some random unwanted, invading material in body fluid, alien substance, wanted and planned by some, mistakes by others, and just downright hated by others depending on circumstances.You already have the misguided option sanction by the governing people of the day.They are also in the same boat. Whats the problem?

There are numerous arguments we can go down, but the most pivotal one is that even if we grant the premise that a foetus is a human, it doesn't matter, because no "human" has any kind of legal human right to legally obtain the bodily resources of an unwilling human (read: a woman who does not want to be pregnant) for the purposes of its own survival. Which is why, a lot of the time, any scare-mongering about third-term abortions are especially unjustified, because women who are in the third term of pregnancy generally want to either keep the child or at the very least give birth to it for someone else's benefit, and the only reason any woman has a third trimester abortion amounts to either the life of the mother being in danger, the discovering of a crippling condition the future child will end up having, or a still-birth in the womb.

You can kill anybody you want. People do it every day. Then there is the outcome. Cause and effect. All your choice

At 6/12/2013 6:15:53 AM, JonMilne wrote:Put quite simply, the rights of the woman should be absolutely paramount in a pregnancy, and if a woman does not want to remain pregnant, then she should not be forced to remain so.

And so they kill the, um, lets see now, its a, a, fertilized egg, but not yet ready to be born, so we'll just call it a fetus, non human, just some random unwanted, invading material in body fluid, alien substance, wanted and planned by some, mistakes by others, and just downright hated by others depending on circumstances.You already have the misguided option sanction by the governing people of the day.They are also in the same boat. Whats the problem?

There are numerous arguments we can go down, but the most pivotal one is that even if we grant the premise that a foetus is a human, it doesn't matter, because no "human" has any kind of legal human right to legally obtain the bodily resources of an unwilling human (read: a woman who does not want to be pregnant) for the purposes of its own survival. Which is why, a lot of the time, any scare-mongering about third-term abortions are especially unjustified, because women who are in the third term of pregnancy generally want to either keep the child or at the very least give birth to it for someone else's benefit, and the only reason any woman has a third trimester abortion amounts to either the life of the mother being in danger, the discovering of a crippling condition the future child will end up having, or a still-birth in the womb.

You can kill anybody you want. People do it every day. Then there is the outcome. Cause and effect. All your choice

To me the most pivotal point is that we need to accept responsibility for our actions and the consequences foreseen or unforeseen, of our actions.

We wouldn't expect to jump from a plane and survive (unless it's still on the ground, lol). Why should we expect to have sex and not put up with the consequences? There is too great a refusal to accept responsibility for our own actions now, and abortion is all too often the greatest manifestation of that cowardly refusal.

At 6/12/2013 6:15:53 AM, JonMilne wrote:Put quite simply, the rights of the woman should be absolutely paramount in a pregnancy, and if a woman does not want to remain pregnant, then she should not be forced to remain so.

I am sure you feel the same about your mother and your birth? In some societies or situations where only breast feeding is available, may the mother starve her child by willfully withholding her milk?

There are numerous arguments we can go down, but the most pivotal one is that even if we grant the premise that a foetus is a human, it doesn't matter, because no "human" has any kind of legal human right to legally obtain the bodily resources of an unwilling human

This ignores that most abortions intentionally kill children before the eviction. And, even conceding trespass or parasitism, neither is, justifiably, a capital offense.This involves willful negligence. It can never be an act that causes by forces beyond an individual's control.

Psalm 118:8, "It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man."

At 6/12/2013 8:56:37 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:No it is not responsible to create a child that is unwanted, but that is what contraception is for, abortion can only be carried out once the child has been created, therefore it is an abdication of an responsibility already formed.

Demonstrating that you haven't read my argument at all. Sometimes there's a failure of contraception, or like I said the parties involved can sometimes be unaware of how to use said contraception. And then of course there's rape. But beyond that, if you truly considering abortion an "abdication" of responsibility because it's apparently murder, then why in the world would you make the "take responsibility" and "deal with the consequences" argument in the first place? If abortion is murder, then why talk about women needing to "take responsibility" for their "voluntary choice" to have sex? Shouldn"t you just be focusing on the whole murder thing, rather than talking about a pregnancy and resulting baby like they"re some sort of "consequences" that a woman choosing to have sex should have to be shouldered with? If abortion isn"t murder, the only reason to oppose it is in an effort to control women"s sexuality. If abortion is murder, than whether or not women should "take responsibility" should not matter. Only inveighing against murder should matter.

Using your argument against you no human life-form has the right to terminate the existence of another.

Not at all. As a matter of fact, we have such things as property or "castle" rights, wherein you are in theory allowed to kill someone who is engaging in a form of trespass on your personal property. This is an absolutely apt description to give to a life-form that would end up taking the unwilling woman's body hostage for nine months and thus the unwilling woman's right to kill it.

In fact, having been created through an act performed by the mother and father, the foetus has an inalienable right to expect the parent to maintain it's life by whatever means necessary. They created it, they can care for it, the father by providing for the needs of the mother and the mother by providing for the needs of the child.

The father is biologically irrelevant during the pregnancy. He's not the one who has to carry the child in him for nine months. Advocates of pro-choice generally believe that a human being's body is inviolable, and the state should not regulate it. Specifically, women should never be forced to be "incubators" for a fetus. Furthermore, adoption is not a viable alternative to abortion because it does not address the problem of unwanted pregnancy; only the problem of unwanted parenthood. Abortion addresses both. And while adoption can spare a woman the burden of child-rearing, it cannot insulate her from the psychological distress, which can be severe, of giving up a child her instincts tell her to keep.

Furthermore, comparing the rights of the embryo/foetus against those to the mother depends heavily on whether the embryo/foetus can be considered a person capable of having rights. For all the 'life begins at conception' arguments defining the start of personhood is far more complex and many authorities - especially non religious ones - place it beyond the limit for normal legal abortions at around 25 weeks.

Pregnancy is a life changing event. Women will necessarily have serious medical risks and will endure serious pain and suffering carrying a child to term and giving birth. Yet no one proposes laws to stop pregnancy for "women's health" concerns. Women who are pregnant will necessarily face emotional and physical changes regardless of the outcome of the pregnancy. Women who give a child up for adoption may one day think it was the best decision, and may on a different day wish they had raised the baby. Women who have children may look at the life they live and have days they regret the whole thing. No one is cautioning them not to have children much less make it a law. Women who are pregnant and poor, risk their own life and health as well as the baby's life and health - but the cries for help go largely unheard by the society at large. The only time "pro life" camp offers "health to the woman" as a national issue to be addressed is when abortion is the topic.

Dismissing pregnancy as a "temporary inconvenience" which will hardly affect a woman's social life and career fails to understand the massive, life changing effects that pregnancy and parenthood have on a woman's life. Pregnancy is a serious medical condition that can cause severe mental and physical harm, especially when it's unwanted. Something that can maim or even kill someone should never be described as an "inconvenience". This argument also fails to address the very reality of day to day life for women, and denies them the right to put themselves in the best position for their personal success. A women on Broadway, a NASA astronaut, any Military Academy cadet, a politician running for office, a mother with 2 jobs and 2 kids who is interviewing for a new job with bennies, a teacher in a rural town, a 16 year old facing a scholarship to college, would all reasonably stand to lose major events in their life for the sake of a child they did not want.

Although it takes two to make a child, it's always the woman who's left holding the baby. If this can be prevented before the embyo/foetus becomes a person then this could be said to be a positive outcome

As to when the foetus become s a human life, conception is the only time that can happen since all the DNA the foetus needs is in the sperm / egg combination. a dead sperm cannot fertilize a live egg and a dead egg cannot be fertilized by a live sperm. Life is not created, it is simply passed on.

Carl Sagan has my back here about how best to define a human being when it comes to the whole abortion debate. In "The Question Of Abortion" (co-authored with Ann Druyan), which I highly recommend you read, their most powerful argument regards how to define a human being"one who receives the rights inherent to human beings. A human being cannot be defined as "potential", or we would be compelled to protect every sperm and ovum, an absurd impracticality. Nor can it begin at conception, because most zygotes (fertilized egg) naturally fail to implant in the uterus. Humanity in a fetus cannot be defined by whether it has developed a heart, or lungs, or toenails, or fingerprints, or a recognizably human face, because such things are superficial and are not what make us human. The only standard left is the brain. Druyan and Sagan deal with this last in scientific and philosophical terms. They point out that it is only the higher brain functions that differentiate us from other animals. However, scans conducted of infant brains show that most babies do not develop such functions until thirty days after birth. Using that as an absolute standard would condone infanticide, but the authors sidestep the issue by erring on the safe side. The earliest a fetus has ever been known to show higher brain functions (as determined by scans of fetal brain activity) is at six months of age. Until the fetus is six months old, Druyan and Sagan conclude in "The Question of Abortion", abortion should be allowed and protected.

If you don't like it maybe you should take that up with God. He created us this way.

Again, I don't believe in God, so appealing to the subjective opinions of a mystical authority cuts no ice with me.

In the end it doesn't really matter if you believe in God or not. in the majority of cases abortion is a way of someone who refuses to accept responsibility for their actions. The worst form of selfish moral cowardice.

What's the saying? If you don't like the heat, keep out of the kitchen, or in this case, the bedroom.

If you can't handle what could result from wha

It impossible to make a horse drink which is not thirsty, or eat if it is not hungry.

Likewise it is impossible to teach a person who does not wish to learn. Matthew 13:15.

At 6/12/2013 6:15:53 AM, JonMilne wrote:Put quite simply, the rights of the woman should be absolutely paramount in a pregnancy, and if a woman does not want to remain pregnant, then she should not be forced to remain so.

I am sure you feel the same about your mother and your birth? In some societies or situations where only breast feeding is available, may the mother starve her child by willfully withholding her milk?

There are numerous arguments we can go down, but the most pivotal one is that even if we grant the premise that a foetus is a human, it doesn't matter, because no "human" has any kind of legal human right to legally obtain the bodily resources of an unwilling human

This ignores that most abortions intentionally kill children before the eviction. And, even conceding trespass or parasitism, neither is, justifiably, a capital offense.This involves willful negligence. It can never be an act that causes by forces beyond an individual's control.

Interesting and valid point.

Abortion because you are not prepared to share your nutrients with the result of your own actions is exactly the same as withholding food from a child or adult for whom you are responsible. That is why some people, quite rightly, call abortion murder, because it is the wilful taking of a human life.

Just because it is legal does not make it morally right. Far from it. They don't even execute murderers in many areas, why should you take the life of an innocent foetus for purely selfish reasons?

And in the end it does boil down to these two main factors.

However you twist it, a fertilised egg is a living human being, with all the necessary DNA for life and development. All it's physical attributes are already written down in potentia.

You had the choice over whether to have sex or not (in most cases anyway). The child had no choice about being conceived.

Even if you don't think having sex is wrong, you cannot say that doing so without regard for the possible consequences is, and being drunk is no excuse because no-one forced you to get drunk. That too was your choice, live with it.

It impossible to make a horse drink which is not thirsty, or eat if it is not hungry.

Likewise it is impossible to teach a person who does not wish to learn. Matthew 13:15.

Women have the right to reproductive decisions. They have the right to use birth control, and to keep their legs together. Once a human life has been created, intentionally ending that life is murder, period.

At 6/12/2013 11:18:17 AM, medic0506 wrote:Women have the right to reproductive decisions. They have the right to use birth control, and to keep their legs together. Once a human life has been created, intentionally ending that life is murder, period.

That settles that.

: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.

At 6/12/2013 11:18:17 AM, medic0506 wrote:Women have the right to reproductive decisions. They have the right to use birth control, and to keep their legs together. Once a human life has been created, intentionally ending that life is murder, period.

At 6/12/2013 6:15:53 AM, JonMilne wrote:Put quite simply, the rights of the woman should be absolutely paramount in a pregnancy, and if a woman does not want to remain pregnant, then she should not be forced to remain so.

I am sure you feel the same about your mother and your birth? In some societies or situations where only breast feeding is available, may the mother starve her child by willfully withholding her milk?

There are numerous arguments we can go down, but the most pivotal one is that even if we grant the premise that a foetus is a human, it doesn't matter, because no "human" has any kind of legal human right to legally obtain the bodily resources of an unwilling human

This ignores that most abortions intentionally kill children before the eviction. And, even conceding trespass or parasitism, neither is, justifiably, a capital offense.This involves willful negligence. It can never be an act that causes by forces beyond an individual's control.

That depends. In terms of punishment of the crime, you're correct. But in terms of "preventing the crime from continuing", you're flatly and utterly wrong. Have you really never seen the "trespassers will be shot" signs?

Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!

At 6/12/2013 11:18:17 AM, medic0506 wrote:Women have the right to reproductive decisions. They have the right to use birth control, and to keep their legs together. Once a human life has been created, intentionally ending that life is murder, period.

A woman can do what she pleases with her body. Period.

That is just it, the baby is not HER body. Leeching off someone has never and should never be a capital offense.

Psalm 118:8, "It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man."

At 6/12/2013 11:18:17 AM, medic0506 wrote:Women have the right to reproductive decisions. They have the right to use birth control, and to keep their legs together. Once a human life has been created, intentionally ending that life is murder, period.

A woman can do what she pleases with her body. Period.

That is just it, the baby is not HER body. Leeching off someone has never and should never be a capital offense.

The organism in question is like a parasite attached to a host. If the host wants to terminate it, I see no problem with this (as long as its within the first and second trimester).